To the guy who busted up my car: THANK YOU! Your actions were prescient. They will give me a definite landmark for remembering this day. By just about 24 hours, you predicted the rage I feel now. You make me realize how inconsequential an act it really was, and how privileged I am to be able to recover from this affront rather quickly.

Yesterday, just mere hours after you dumped the neatly separated recycling container housing the plastic juice bottles, almond milk containers, and the thick glass jar that once contained peppers, the jar that likely created the spider-web of damage on the windshield of my honda civic, I listened attentively as a lawyer for the former President of the United States made arguments to the Supreme Cout of the United States. The topic- if the state of Colorado could refuse access to the ballot for the former president, since they decided he committed insurrection to the Country of the United States (or gave aide and comfort to those who did).

What was I expecting? Was the lawyer for the former President of the United States going to defend his client by arguing he did NOT committ insurrection? Well for 2 hours I heard at most (rounding up) 5 minutes on this. I DID hear a lot of argument of why the former President of the United States was NOT an OFFICER of the United States, and some list of officers OF the United States that are specifically listed UNDER the President of the United States. I did hear the term “Collateral Estoppel” a lot. I googled it, with full faith it would be a trending search term. It wasn’t. A court, previously showing so much deference to “States Rights” was asking over, and over, ‘if we decide for this state, isn’t that state deciding for the country?’

I also heard much discussion about the intent of the Foiurteenth Amendment- it was written just after the civil war, so it was only meant for the southern rebels of the Civil war, it’s been a 150 years, and it’s never been used. Should we really use it now?

Finally I heard a lot of whining about a deadline and the word “holds.” It says he can’t “HOLD” office, it doesn’t say he can’t “RUN” for office. If he ran for office at 34 and a half, but would turn 35 on inaugruation day, then the state disallowing access to the ballot was “Pushing up the deadline.” That’s like arguing a 16-year old should be able to buy a 6-pack because we can’t know his intent, maybe he plans to let that Coors light age like fine wine for five years? Who are we to know? There’s one thing I know about the former President of the United States… He’s not 34 and-a-half. Though he may be as bright as the 16 year old buying Coors light (at least get PBR, kid). Somewhat dejected, completely stupefied by the apparent acceptance that the former President of the United States, did in fact committ inssurrection, (by the Supreme Court of the United States), I listened to the legal scholars analyses soon after the hearings. I bargained- (maybe they will split the difference, not take the DC appeals case, giving time for the former President of the United States to stand trial on 91 felony counts before he’s potentially able to win back the presidency and absolve himself of any consequences).

I went out to go shopping. Walking down my front steps I saw garbage strewn about… Did a hungry wild animal smell food and try to get in my garbage? Wow they really did a number on this garbage. Then I saw my car… no animal did that, (the conservatives in this country would call him an animal, I reserve the right to treat him as a human being, one who did an odd, or angry act).

Not long after reporting the scene to my wife, getting in touch with a repair shop, I learned from neighbors that this human being did in fact dump garbage on top of several cars on my street. Weird. I cleaned the garbage off my car and sidewalk, re-sorted the reclycing, then came back inside to hear the breaking news. ‘Special Counsel will not press charges against the President of the United States.’ Were there details about technical legal reasons why he would not be charged? Was there more or less a consensus that the President of the United States committed a crime? Was it as important or grave as the actions adjudicated before Supreme Court of the United States that morning? Was it easier to understand and, therfore, more headline-provoking?

By the time I went to bed the top 5 stories on the NY Times were all related to the President of the United States not being charged, and his memory slipping. The special counselor, who I’m going on a limb here, is not a doctor, seemed to question the memory of the President of the United States. Wow, what digging. What nonesense and conjecture. The special counselor reported the potential breach of classified documentation was about the President of the United States retaining his own handwritten notes. This must have been a failure in his memory. The special counselor also suggested, on what basis I don’t know, that the President of the United States forgot when his son died. Wow, you must be losing it to forget when your son died, right? The NY Times pontificaes that this will assuredly be a blow to the credibility of the President of the United States. They also highly place a story of another horrible incident- the President of the United States used the name of the former head of state of Germany instead of the correct one for the time period he was talking about (in another forum, years afterwards).

The “BUT HIS AGE!” campaign is taking off. This is no coincidence. The standard is being set- the American people are being forced to consider conjecture about a law-abiding President above the seemingly agreed upon fact that the former President committed treason. All I can say is, thanks to the guy who dumped garbage on my car, it gave me a great story to write about!

The post Some Guy Busted Up My Car?! appeared first on My Blog.

Since seeing his performance last summer at Newport Jazz festival I’ve been completely in awe of Jon Batiste, the subject of ‘American Symphony’ a documentary about him, his marriage and his composition of the same name.

For most of my adult life I’ve been vaguely aware of ‘Maestro’ Leonard Bernstein, famous for his broadway productions, but also a conductor- tuxedo cred to backup the broadway fame.

No doubt both men have fascinating stories, but unfortunately these movies fail to capture it. Maestro is made in a grand typical hollywood style, but in shooting between a biopic and a tragic hero drama, the movie misses the mark completely. In revering Leonard Bernstein a bit too much it lacks enough detail to inform those who do not know his history, while keeping enough distance to make him an emotionally gripping character. Bernstein’s wife, superbly portrayed by Carey Mulligan, is the vehicle for dramatic tension, yet she is but a side dish. Perhaps more of a focus on the character would’ve made a better movie.

The plot exposition comes quick, and its likely the producers felt revealing the luridness of such an upper crust figure would be enough to tittilate. Bernstein is shaken out of bed by a phone call informing him he’ll be needed to conduct the NY philharmonic that night, due to sickness. He jumps out of bed, slapping the buttocks of the man he was sharing that bed with. His conducting performance was a smashing success, per the small circle of people who’s opinion decide these things. His social extravagance soon becomes revealed at the party where he meets his future wife, Felicia Montealegre.

Early on, Bernstein is faced with a decision- take on the challenge to dedicate himself to being the ‘first great American conductor,’ or pursue his passion of producing popular music for the broadway stage. Felicia, validates him, with the substance of that “why not both” gif, and the action unfurls- a montage that salutes his resume, displays his open pansexuality and her permissiveness. His other lovers are not really developed as characters. The climax, if you could call it that, comes when Felicia travels to watch Lenny conduct Mahler’s 2nd (“the ressurection symphony,” an interesting detail you’d really have to be in the know about to connect to the story). Felicia declares at the end of this performance that Lenny ‘doesn’t have any hate in his heart,’ which is true, he’s just completely self absorbed.

Where Maestro delves in too far to display a character that seems hard to love, American Symphony doesn’t need to try hard to show you a man who seems amazingly easy to love. It’s modern production is seemingly a lot of cellphone footage taped together. It doesn’t have much of an arc passed the drama you might already know. Jon Batiste is catapulting towards stardom, just when his wife, Suleika Jaouad, suffers a recurrence of cancer symptoms. She needs to get more treatment, just as he’s poised to go win some grammys. If there is ever a question as to why he might not be around while she’s getting cancer treatment, the film makes clear that their shared love of creation as means for escape binds their souls though they are apart. Backdrop a montage of his history and development as a musician, conclude with the developing his work “American Symphony,” it’s COVID delays and it’s eventual Carnegie Hall premiere. There might be more to this story but, well, it hasn’t happened yet. It doesn’t have the ending that, Maestro, in generic hollywood film style glimpses as a beginning.

One film might be 20 years too late, while the other is too early. They both deal with fine musicians but their ego’s are as night and day as their skin tones. They have to deal with the health issues of the women who love them, and this dealing with is exactly what shows how they are different. Do yourself a favor and just listen to some of their music now. Be happy Batiste is touring and spend your time on that instead…

The post Great Musicians; Boring Movies Bernstein vs Batiste appeared first on My Blog.

The outcomes of this are far-reaching: this human intellect births religion, chock full of answers for the uncertainties created by this human ability. Religion conveniently creates the soul, placing man above animal. The difference is so obvious- an orangutan cannot give you a reason why he should be considered “above” a human- but the question has been asked, (because we can ask it) so we must answer. Religion decisively answers: “soul,” “heaven,” theoretically soothing our theoretical soul, while motivating the physical body.

Conversely, this question, enhanced: “What is the purpose of the human ability to perceive existence” (‘meaning of life’) spurs scientists to investigate and explain biology, astronomy and geology while artists catalog and celebrate all aspects of the human condition. With  respect to human ability compared to animals, scientifically language and capabilities derived from extended social relationships are the best answers science has attained. I, personally, haven’t heard about any research regarding the soul escaping the body upon death.

The inability for humanity to recognize the advantages that could be derived from this human ability to diagnose itself, which by this point to the elemental, genetic level, is the main thing that is holding humanity itself back. Big thinking paradigm shifting theorists will always have their place, but the large-scale shifts in popular thought tend to have larger impacts.

From the rejections of Galileo and Darwin, to the current trend of vaccination-phobia which is reviving eradicated diseases, humans suffer from an apparent fear of rationalism. The inability for rationality to win out in political and personal decisions is a major obstacle. From voting out of fear or anger as opposed to a rational measure of personal benefit, to rearing children to suffer through an upcoming climate catastrophe, lack of rationality as a basis for personal decision making can have severely adverse effects.

Though religion is my main culprit for this irrationality, it is not the simple negation, atheism, that will lead to rationality. Many critics of “the new atheists” claim their outspoken advocacy of atheism as its own type of religion. This is something I must disagree with. Atheists don’t congregate. Atheists don’t all adopt the same philosophy. A pantheist and a buddhist (who believes in buddhist theory but doesn’t believe buddha is God) can both consider themselves atheist, and they obviously won’t share the same beliefs.

The closest atheists come to religion is humanism. Even humanism has been divided between religious humanism and secular humanism though they both share basic tenets. The new atheists should go beyond advocating atheism and go on to advocate humanism. Sam Harris ponders on a “universal morality” in his writings, which is something that can conceivably become akin to humanist dogma, only Harris (from what I read) cannot identify a universal morality, but can merely reject cultural relativism. The society that accepts female genital mutilation, for example, doesn’t get a pass on observing human rights. Using this example Harris argues that human benefit can be gauged, and eventually this gauge can lead us to a universal morality.

Getting back to Darwin, though there are many who still refuse to accept a familial connection with apes, scientifically, the DNA similarity is striking. Unfortunately the argument has not evolved. Evolution of the human is rarely considered. The simple fact that humans evolved in a world much different than the one we live in today should be used as guidance. Sex (religion is definitely a cause of sexual misunderstanding and repression), is a great example. The Venus of Willendorf is the prime example of traditional sexual motivation. I still remember the hilarity that overtook AP art history class when she was presented as a “sex symbol.” The explanation of her symbolism of fertility smacked squarely against the modern conception of beauty where “no fat chicks” is the norm. Does anyone even ponder how or why this change occurred? Has overpopulation and child support laws made bearing children so less beneficial that thin, less fertile women become more sought after? Are homosexuals genetic adaptations to benefit an overpopulated planet?  Does athletic ability make the act of sex more enjoyable, supplanting child rearing as the main purpose for sex, leading to a change in desired body type? Have fashion designers, branded apparel producers  and their advertising molded the psyche of society? Any or all of these examples could be the case, but the rational people are still fighting against creationist museums, and intelligent design mentions in science textbooks.

Rational discussions about food have been the best case I’ve encountered, but even these are nowhere near mainstream. Tastebuds developed to appreciate fat in a world of scarcity. Today, a ubiquity of fattening food is a paradigm that’s hard to transition to. Will Brusselsprouts taste great in the future cause we need their nutrition more than we need fat stores to survive food scarcity?

I also do not want to identify religion as the sole cause of irrational thinking. For better or for worse, the root causes of irrationality are shifting. The importance of religion in people’s lives has waned in many parts of the US, for a variety of reasons. Increasingly, manifestations of popular culture from musicians to athletes to fashion magazines, mixed with a dependent news-media that spins more than it reports, play more of a role in driving personal choices. In many ways, portraying one’s status has become a raison d’etre, driving purchases from necessities as clothing and food to luxuries especially cars. Advertisers have flipped the concept of capitalism itself, plunging americans into a cycle of need that can never be fulfilled, as opposed to a socially-positive fulfillment of those needs by a responsible marketplace. (This is the main argument of Benjamin Barber in his book ‘consumed,’ that this has created a permanent ‘infantilization’ of American adults.)

The information deficit model – the idea that providing more information to the public will lead to an enlightenment – has also been proven to be insufficient. Studies have shown that, when confronted with data that contrasts with one’s beliefs, people dig deeper to justify their beliefs.

Once a standard of non-rationality is set, irrationality then may become a psychological defense mechanism for any of the normal problems or challenges of life. Depression, anxiety and fear are universal emotions, but the way in which people handle these emotions are far-ranging. For someone who deals with the situations that cause these emotions with irrational thinking, the negative emotions will linger. Coping can only be achieved through honest introspection.

Irrational and self-defeating thinking and behaving are correlated with emotional difficulties such as self-blame, jealousy, guilt, Low Frustration Tolerance, depression, and anxiety.

The post Humanism appeared first on My Blog.